>If you reject the dualistic idea that we have infallible knowledge about ourselves,
I reject that idea but I also reject the claim that Nick makes that I have no knowledge of myself which is not known by observing my behavior. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, 9:17 AM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > The question of mechanism is not an easy one. There have been several > attempts to figure out how to speak of it, by those who think mostly along > the same lines as Nick and I do. > > Gilbert Ryle famously talked about "dispositions" in this context. Nick > wants to go with pure "up reduction". My buddies Andrew and Sabrina want to > talk about how organisms transition between being different types of > special-purpose machines. There are other options. > > No one is denying that there are internal mechanisms which, in the right > environment, will produce the pattern of responses being discussed. The > first question is how to properly understand the relationship between that > *part > *of the mechanism and the "higher-level" phenomenon of interest. All I > care about, and all Nick should care about, in that context is that we keep > our descriptions and explanations distinct. Discussion of brain parts > serves to help explain the behavioral patterns of interest, and at no point > should we confuse the brain parts for the behavioral pattern. That would be > like confusing the breakdown of baking soda with the rising of the bread. > Obviously the baking soda is important, and it is worth describing how it > breaks down when wet, but also we can't rule out that there are other ways > for bread to rise, and if we remove all the wet baking soda, no amount of > staring at it in isolation will result in our finding leavened bread. > > The second question is how to understand how we "feel" the emotion. The > answer is going to be something of the form: *We are socially taught to > recognize early correlates of the larger patterns, and to label them in > particular ways.* If you reject the dualistic idea that we have > infallible knowledge about ourselves, you are going to end up at some > variation of that. And if you are *not *going to > reject infallible-dualistic-self-insight, then we shouldn't be anywhere > near this discussion yet, because there are much more basic issues > to figure out first. > > Again, in a casual conversation, we can really not care about any of this. > > Also, I'm not sure what's up with the thumbs metaphor. You have thumbs, I > could definitely, have your thumbs. Yes, there's a sense in which your > thumb is a complex, dynamic system. But also, your thumb is easily removed > and handed to me. In this modern wonder-age, I could even have it attached > and made functional on my own hand. > > <echar...@american.edu> > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:21 PM Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > >> >> uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: >> > It's not a matter of being absolute or not. It's a matter of >> nit-picking the particular word used rather than trying to dig into the >> mechanism. Balling up the composition into "have", "are", or "doing" is all >> useless posturing. I don't care. Use "are" if you want. I don't care. It's >> silly to distinguish. >> >> It is not silly to me insomuch as each of those *feels* very >> different. I see others who seem to *do* their emotions... "throwing >> tantrums" vs "having fits" vs "being spastic"... >> >> My inner experience is more that of "having fits" in the moment, but on >> careful analysis, I sometimes recognize that I might have "thrown a >> tantrum" trying to disguise it as "having a fit". In the long run >> though, it seems that it does sum to "being spastic". >> >> > What I do care about is *how* we compose from part to whole. >> Superposition is, at least implies, a particular composition, a frequency >> domain, overlay. But I'd argue it's an impoverished one. The question is >> about the "hard problem", qualia, quality, etc. When you look at the >> experiments surrounding general anesthesia, with electrodes planted in >> various places on and in the body, you see time series that exhibit very >> long- and very short- term patterns. Consciousness can be quantified based >> on these time series (and spectral analyses of them). You can do the same >> with semi-conscious sedation. They are not superpositions so much as >> sequential modes, iterative feedback loops, waxing and waning in intensity >> ... waves upon carrier waves. So superposition is necessary, but >> insufficient.y >> >> yes, more aptly "coupling" I'd hazard, though to a casual outside >> observer, superposition is what is observed from the outside? >> >> I was in a men's group for a while which had any number of silly (to me, >> not to them) rituals which included checking in to the group with our >> emotions. They desperately wanted everyone to conform to the >> mad/sad/glad/scared basis space. I resisted, often checking in with >> "hopeful yet trepidatious"... which was the only words I felt >> comfortable using to describe the feelings I had. They tried to >> intimidate and cajole me into mad/sad/glad/scared. The best I could >> offer was "I'm glad to be here, a little sad that I have to describe it >> in these four words, scared that you will reject me because I'm not >> following your code precisely, and mad that you might do such a >> thing". I thought "hopeful but trepidatious" was a good shorthand >> for that. I stuck with them for a few months until I attended a >> weekend intensive which was quite profound but mostly just made me >> realize I had better things to do than drive 90 minutes round trip once >> a week to struggle with these guys who had too tight of a formulation >> (bless the cardinal directions and their colors, check in >> mad/sad/glad/scared, etc.) for my interest (over time). >> >> > Anyone who wants to talk about emotions and things like qualia or sense >> of self, has to talk about such things. If they don't, they're merely >> talking to hear themselves speak. >> >> That's a tight prescription and judgement... >> >> Carry on! >> >> - Steve >> >> > >> > On 8/26/21 10:16 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> uǝlƃ ☤>$ >> >>> Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. >> >> I understand that I was being provocative with the specific formulation >> >> "we ARE" as if it were an absolute. >> >>> To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by >> which parts compose the whole. >> >> I agree and only wanted to add to the composition "are" along with >> >> "have" and "act-out" . >> >>> The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order >> frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they >> organized? >> >> To what extent are our identities/sense-of-self (inner experience and >> >> outer presentation) the superposition of our "emotions"? yes, we are >> >> more and less than that, yet for some purposes it seems we ARE that. >> > >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
